Talk:Future Gohan
Seroiusly why is this needed? Your Leader Mr. Kazi----- Talk 17 August 2008 Energy Shield/Evil Barrier I'm not sure if it applies to just BT3, but that game calls it Evil Barrier. It sounds more like to keep in line with Piccolo's attacks. line breaks But i didn't theres a bulitpoint with no text i removed it cause i though whats the point of there being a bulletpoint with no text that's all.--InoNOTHING 06:53, September 28, 2009 (UTC) video game When the article talks about his appearance in Budokai Tenkachai 3, it states that hes one of the best characters to play as. Is this necessary? Family Do we really need to put all of his alternate timeline relatives? I don't think they really belong. Scarletspiderfan 20:27, December 23, 2010 (UTC) :No, the Manual of Style has rules for that. 21:44, December 23, 2010 (UTC) :Thanks man, I didn't think so. It looks strange having a long winded list like that when their technically not related to the "Future" Gohan.Scarletspiderfan 00:11, December 24, 2010 (UTC) Speculative Sentance This sentance has the appearnce of being speculative. I think we need rewrite it or delete it from the page. 20:32, January 15, 2012 (UTC) :Nah it's fine. I mean, it certainly wasn't before the androids, because we've already seen the timeline up until then. 03:54, January 16, 2012 (UTC) :Oh, okay; it just looked like it was implied that Future Gohan Transformed when he saw his friends being murdered. 03:59, January 16, 2012 (UTC) Gohan's Death a Suicide or Necessary Self-Sacrifice I watched the scene again and from his lines it seems like a suicide. First off, he knew he couldn't beat them with one arm. He had trouble taking them on with both arms and knew he couldn't win with such a significant handicap. What he said to Trunks after he knocked him out could be seen as didactic, with the deeper meaning implying suicide in the same way that Bardock committed suicide. "Sorry about that Trunks, but I wouldn't be able to forgive myself if anything happened to you" Meaning One: Gohan doesn't want Trunks to die because he really cares about him. Meaning Two: Gohan knows he's about to go fight to the death which makes Trunks the only hope for humanity. if he let's Trunks die, he's dooming humanity. What he says right before he leaves doesn't have a double meaning and clearly implies suicide for noble reasons. He says "I can feel them all crying down there Trunks, that's why I have to go. I know you'll understand someday." This is telling us that he knows he's going to die and he'd rather die in a "blaze of glory" so to speak, than sit by while the androids continued to kill innocent people. It's also important that Trunks almost became a super saiyan right before this fight. Gohan saw that Trunks would be the person who could save the planet. He felt his role was no longer necessary, especially after losing an arm. He mentions three different times after he knocks Trunks out that Trunks will be the one to save world. "This is my battle for now little brother, you're not quite ready yet." "You know you can't win! You can't destroy what I really am. Even if you manage to kill this body someone even stronger will surface and take my place." "There is no end for me! No end!" Implying that he will live on through Trunks. Anyway, I thought it might be worth a mention. It's pretty apparent that he knew he was going to his death and it makes sense that he would make that decision right after seeing Trunks almost attain his super saiyan form. DragonBallScreenshots 03:55, February 7, 2012 (UTC) He is better then his main counter part! He should have just kept training. CN Leave Me A Message 19:05, December 26, 2012 (UTC) "Revived" Hello. On the date of death there is shown that future gohan is "revived". you know that this CANT be true. in the future timeline there is no dragonballs and its not seen that gohan is revived anyway. and forget about the namekian dragonballs. they are not mentioned in the history of trunks. and ps: sorry for my english. im from germany :Um he was revived in Shin Budokai 2 and is most likely gonna be revived in Dragon Ball Super, using Future Dende as the god. However in Shin Budokai 2, they used the "one year limit" rule (which is a misinformation BTW), so Future Gohan was revived the same way Goku wasBH Ouji (talk) 08:15, October 29, 2016 (UTC) Scholar/warrior This post is just to explain why Cloudtheavenger's edit was false. 1. First of all, this is Future Gohan, whose life was anything but that of a scholar. 2. If you're talking about regular Gohan, I don't know what you mean by "his full potential as a Super Saiyan 2", but he achieved that form while fighting Cell. 3. He met Old Kai because he was training with the Z Sword (rather than studying), and he was training with the Z Sword because Supreme Kai was impressed with his fighting skills. 4. If you're talking about Future Gohan, he was brought back to life and had his power unlocked to fight, which has nothing to do with being a scholar. If I'm mistaken, then, my apologies; I've never played Shin Budokai: Another Road. 03:03, March 14, 2013 (UTC) Revived Considering that Future Gohan's revival was something of a "What if?" scenario, I propose, at the very least, to move his revival to a different section with a notice that it is a hypothetical video game scenario, and at the most to get rid of it entirely. 21:21, April 25, 2013 (UTC) :I would rule out removing it entirely, and just consider where to put it. Or maybe link to the game's page and just include a sentence or two about the events. 01:47, April 26, 2013 (UTC) Both of these seem like valid options. I'm for them. 02:05, April 26, 2013 (UTC) Simply noting his revival within the "Appearances in video games" section seems most applicable to me. In fact, it already states this. 02:57, April 26, 2013 (UTC) That seems fine to me too. 23:18, May 1, 2013 (UTC) Super Saiyan 3 Future Gohan, just wow!!! Guys, I really want to see Dragon Ball Heroes anime adapted version. And I wonder any guess about this? Clock God (talk) 14:46, June 23, 2013 (UTC) Mrstoflet1284 - I would like to see a manga or anime (that would be considered cannon) with a similar take of when Future Gohan is revived and given his Mystic/Ultimate/Elder Kai Unlock (however you would like to call it) ability in Shin Budokai AR because he made a big impression and yes he is my favorite character as well. Favorite hair/SSJ Hairstyle and his mentality. If they did a manga or anime (again cannon) of his revival, upgrade, and story I would be estatic. That was the one big reason I bought Shin Budokai AR just to play his lead role. DB Heroes did a neat thing with his being SSJ3. TO me it feels empty that he didn't have more of a role such as the Anime version of Bardock in his own 2 films. To see Mirai (Future) Trunks and Gohan going on heroic adventures would just be a neat side series. That is just me being extremely hopeful. Also if anyone has some awesome Future Gohan images to share I am game :) Thank you. Now it's his time to be a SSJ4, just like Gohan! C'mon Dimps make it happenedBH Ouji (talk) 17:57, February 25, 2017 (UTC) Gohan's revival I still absolutely detest noting that he was "revived" within the infobox. For now, I've explicitly noted in parenthesis that this happens within a video game only. However, I still believe this should be removed all together and only noted below in the specific section about Shin Budokai etc. 04:36, October 9, 2013 (UTC) i agree with SSJGoku93 video games are not canon and shouldn't be used as sources 12:11, October 9, 2013 (UTC) I think it's ok if a reference is there 18:10, October 9, 2013 (UTC) :Yes and his fate in DBS doesn't make more sense either, as DBS was made to shut up those crybabies, who couldn't stand that Dragon Ball is over "You will not bring back the Dragonball anime, no matter how hard you try. Dragonball is finished! It's over! Toriyama, though still parodying it, is done with the series! Toei is done with it! It's dried out, and darn near impossible to add anymore original story to it! Dragonball has done everything, and therefore has no more reason to go on. Besides, you alone will not start a massive revolution of anime. Nothing you could ever do will bring back Dragonball, especially with your attitude." Told yaBH Ouji (talk) 19:55, August 3, 2017 (UTC) What the fudge are you talking about?! Being killed by Future Lapis (and Future Lazuli as seen in the anime) is not a heroic death, Future Gohan died becuase of his own stupity, i'm glad bandai are making us change this storyBH Ouji (talk) 09:47, February 25, 2017 (UTC) Also "(spirit destroyed in Age 797, actual timeline)" - actual timeline? You mean DBS's timeline? That's nonsense, the REAL Future Gohan is still waiting in heaven to be revived, his NOT destroyed by Future ZenoBH Ouji (talk) 07:22, April 8, 2017 (UTC) How many FGohans are there anyway now? Topic, in the manga, Future Gohan was killed by Future Lapis, in the anime Lapis and Lazuli killed him, and if we take Dragon Ball Super as "canon" he's no longer there, in Shin Budokai 2 he died by Future Lazuli but is revived as a "mystic pansy" and still lives, and in Xenoverse 2, Future Trunks saves his life, but his fate remians unknown, but they most likely got killed by Future Innocent Buu, my head hurtsBH Ouji (talk) 07:52, April 15, 2017 (UTC) Which fate of post death Future Gohan is worse? Him being a mystic pansy in Shin Budokai 2, or being wiped out from existence by Future Zen-Oh, becuase both of them are badBH Ouji (talk) 05:56, May 3, 2017 (UTC) His Bang Zoom VA Hmm the episode didn't aired yet, so why we know he will be voiced by Gohan's VA?BH Ouji (talk) 18:14, June 27, 2017 (UTC) Trivia in need of overhaul This article's trivia section is in need of some serious work. Aside from being extremely long— it's roughly the length of the biography— it contains many, many bullet points that are simply bad content. I tried to whip it into shape, but my edits were swiftly reverted, without explanation. Since apparently any and all removal of content requires extensive discussion, allow me to make my case for what the present issues are. *'Information more suited to body:' The observation that Future Gohan was presumably the one to train Trunks in swordsmanship is the sort of thing that ought to be mentioned in the biography section, since it directly concerns both his relationship with Trunks and his own fighting ability (I should note that Trunks' page lists it in a comparable spot). *'Information ''already in body:' There's one point that mentions Future Gohan's voice actor change. This information is already conveyed in the separate, dedicated voice actor section, so there's no need to mention it again. *'Inappropriate speculation and asides:' The point about the Hebert recasting is immediately followed up by an editor's speculation and defence of why it happened. The point about how ''the manga implies that Future Gohan would not have stood a chance against the Androids is followed up by several "actually"s that go through how Gohan beat the Androids in a video game, but also he had access to additional power, but also regular Gohan should theoretically have that too. Then there's the bullet point that admonishes Future Gohan for not training the way Present Gohan did when fighting Lavender. This is the stuff of fanpages and forum posts, not an encyclopedia. *'Information more suited to other pages:' There's point about how Gohan's missing arm is cleverly hidden on one of the VHS covers. That's an interesting bit of trivia… but it's also the sort of thing that really belongs on the special's page, since it's really about its cover and graphic design more than Gohan himself (I should note that I actually did put it on the special's page, but my attempt to remove it from this one was inexplicably reverted). In another example, there's a note about how Future Trunks isn't as close to Present Gohan as would be expected. An interesting observation, but since it only involves Future Gohan indirectly, it's really more appropriate on Future Trunks' page. *'Typos, run-on sentences and repetitive structure:' A lot of the notes are just poorly written, to the extent it can distract from the actual information. For instance, there's some genuinely interesting bits about how Future Gohan's voice and speech patterns differ from Present Gohan's, but it almost gets lost amongst the run-on sentences and irrelevant details. The entire trivia section could do with an extensive copyediting, I think. *'Quibbling about how video games don't precisely match the TV show:' Mention of how Gohan is able to defeat the Androids when he couldn't in the show, or fighting with two arms. It's a video game; it should be expected that the story gets bent for gameplay purposes. Is it really necessary to note when it happens? I should note this is not an exhaustive list. But I think I have made my point about the serious problems with this section. Again, this is something I tried to remedy by myself, only to find my edits quickly, wordlessly reverted. I am hoping that, by laying it all out, someone can chime in— to agree with me, or explain why everything is actually fine. Either works. — Charchetype (talk) 08:03, April 12, 2018 (UTC) I would like to add that in the article on the section of the flashback sequence in "Ghosts from Tommorow" there is this. "The scene has many similarities to the TV special, and may display the basis of it in a nutshell, but the scene does differ. It is often debatable if the differences in the flashback was because it was a fight not seen in the special, that the animators made a mistake, or Trunks' flashback was just interpreted different (if in-universe description counts). Nevertheless, this episode of Dragon Ball Z premiered in Japan on November 11, 1992, before "The History Of Trunks" special aired in Japan on February 23, 1993." Is this necessary? 0551E80Y (talk) 12:42, April 12, 2018 (UTC) :Definitely not necessary. If that can be expanded with an explanation about how Gohan's story differs between the two versions, then that's relevant; but right now it's just an inappropriate, speculative aside that's only tangentially related to the actual subject matter. — Charchetype (talk) 16:50, April 12, 2018 (UTC) Well, it's been about three weeks and little has been said. I'm not taking silence as agreement, but I do think that I've given ample opportunity for editors to voice their concerns and disagreement. So with that in mind, I'm going to be bold and go ahead with making my proposed changes (in stages, and starting with— I hope— the most agreeable). If there are disagreements now, I encourage people to voice them here. — Charchetype (talk) 01:29, May 8, 2018 (UTC)